Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no errors in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Judgment and dismissed the appeal. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT correctly held that Mr. Neekhra¡¯s due process rights were not violated by an undue delay in the investigation proceedings; that Mr. Neekhra¡¯s actions to copy-paste excerpts from internal/external sources without proper citation was a violation of the Agency¡¯s regulatory framework and constituted misconduct; and that the disciplinary measures of a written censure and deferment of eligibility for consideration for promotion were proportionate to the offense. The Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that there had been a policy change in 1997 which meant that staff members who requested pension as a result of an accident suffered in the service of the Organisation post-1997 were granted it with the proviso that it would only be paid until they retired. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, as the Appellant¡¯s accident occurred long after the policy change in 1997, the changed policy was applicable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that as the Appellant had reached retirement age at the time of the incapacitating injury, his appeal had to be dismissed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered appeals by both the staff member and the Commissioner-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact was undisputed that the staff member knowingly presented non-existent credentials despite questioning the ethics of accepting the document with his qualifications. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that termination was not disproportionate to the offence, taking into account that the staff member¡¯s recruitment, in the first instance, was predicated on the existence of a degree subsequently established to be without merit and which never would have qualified him for selection by the Organisation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it was disingenuous for Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA to suggest that the Appellant¡¯s transfer application was considered in the same manner as the two candidates who were selected from the roster. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT failed to properly exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and erred in law in failing to have regard to the Appellant¡¯s due process entitlements. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred in law in relying on the authority of the Director of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA Affairs, Lebanon, to reject the Appellant¡¯s application for assignment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not uphold the contention that the Appellant had a legitimate...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal of judgment Nos. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2013/035 and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA/DT/2014/004. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no basis to support the Appellant¡¯s claim of legitimate expectations and/or rights for the renewal of his contract. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT erred with respect to the amount awarded for al damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT evaluated all the evidence before it and made a reasoned assessment as to the amount of anxiety and stress suffered by the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that it would not lightly interfere with the determination of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeal of Mr Bagot and the cross-appeal of the Commissioner-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Commissioner-General¡¯s cross-appeal was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with the findings of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT that the established facts regarding the lunch and the events that took place in the apartment did not amount to misconduct. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the only reasonable conclusion available to the first instance Judge was that the facts of the alleged misconduct were not established by clear and convincing evidence, in light of the plot and the sequence of the events, assessed in conjunction with the...

The staff member submits that the ¡°decisive fact¡± which was unknown to him and to the Appeals Tribunal was the erroneous interpretation and application from case to case of Article 10(5) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA DT Statute, Regulation 11.3 of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵRWA International Staff Regulations and Article 9(1)(a) of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Statute. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT disagreed that a variance in the interpretation or application of the law from case to case constitute a ¡°decisive fact¡± that would warrant revision. The Tribunal dismissed the application, finding that it did not meet the statutory requirements and that it was in fact a disguised...